317 replies to this topic

[Lonestar1771]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

Sarna is an accumulation of information created by the community. As a one-stop source, it contains much of the information on the BT universe. It is obvious that the Sarna information on ECM is what's implemented in the game. It is also obvious that much of the lore is not taken into account with mechwarrior games in general, specifically this one in terms of heatsink implementation, armor values, weapon damages, and refire times. TT ideas don't translate directly into FPSs with complete balance.

Everyone knows you can't translate TT exactly over to a PC game, but a lot of things TT did/does work and they work well because it's been refined over time for almost 30 years now. PGI is trying to reinvent the wheel by forcing the square peg into a circle hole. It just doesn't work and PGI is terrible at admitting it's wrong.

[MadSavage]

ECM can be easily fixed by providing an upgrade to BAP and/or providing a module that counters ECM. However, an ideal situation would be to implement BHP, available to select mechs just as ECM is, not the same ones however. MWO BHP could provide a more sluggish lock time for friendly normal mechs and a normal lock time to artemis equipped mechs. In that way, ECM and BHP would counter each other and be equally as rare in the mech selection.

[DocBach]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

ECM can be easily fixed by providing an upgrade to BAP and/or providing a module that counters ECM. However, an ideal situation would be to implement BHP, available to select mechs just as ECM is, not the same ones however. MWO BHP could provide a more sluggish lock time for friendly normal mechs and a normal lock time to artemis equipped mechs. In that way, ECM and BHP would counter each other and be equally as rare in the mech selection.

Did you actually read the original post? Because it pretty much has been a discussion of how other equipment can counter ECM and how ECM can still be used as a deterrent to LRMs by using ghost targets like it could in the rule sets without being a stealth field generator for an entire team.

[MadcatX]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

Tell me if your interpretation of those excerpts from the actual rulebooks and source material makes it sound like MWO has implemented ECM faithfully to the lore.

Yea... wouldn't get attached to that lore a whole lot.
And please put the books away, every singe Mechwarrior video games is not considered canon to begin with since they all took some liberties (some more then others).

[MadSavage]

Lonestar1771, on 05 January 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Everyone knows you can't translate TT exactly over to a PC game, but a lot of things TT did/does work and they work well because it's been refined over time for almost 30 years now. PGI is trying to reinvent the wheel by forcing the square peg into a circle hole. It just doesn't work and PGI is terrible at admitting it's wrong.

OK, lets not turn this into a TT vs MWO discussion. PGI implemented ECM the way they figured best for the game. ECM is much like ariel killstreaks in the COD series, in that as time goes on, players will appriciate them for their values and unlock the later tiers of missile launchers to counter them. BHP, a module slot, and better BAP would be a solution to the problem.

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

Did you actually read the original post? Because it pretty much has been a discussion of how other equipment can counter ECM and how ECM can still be used as a deterrent to LRMs by using ghost targets like it could in the rule sets without being a stealth field generator for an entire team.

There's been no difference between what I've been posting and what other people have been posting. Ghost targets aren't in the game, but it could be a possible effect of ECM, again counterable by the listed solutions.

Edited by MadSavage, 05 January 2013 - 03:35 PM.

[DocBach]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

OK, lets not turn this into a TT vs MWO discussion. PGI implemented ECM the way they figured best for the game. ECM is much like ariel killstreaks in the COD series, in that as time goes on, players will appriciate them for their values and unlock the later tiers of missile launchers to counter them. BHP, a module slot, and better BAP would be a solution to the problem.

Lets not turn this into a comparison of MWO to COD.

If you believe people will appreciate it, I suggest you check out how many calls for it to be changed or nerf there are in comparison to people claiming that it's absolutely fine and that people just have to learn to play (in Ravens and Atlases).

[DocBach]

MadcatX, on 05 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

Yea... wouldn't get attached to that lore a whole lot.
And please put the books away, every singe Mechwarrior video games is not considered canon to begin with since they all took some liberties (some more then others).

I ask you the same question - would sticking to electronic warfare as designed 25 years ago be a better game mechanic then ECM beats ECM, so bring more ECM? Or should the answer be "stupid neckbeards and their rulebooks are ruining my video game, ECM should be like airstrikes in call of duty, people need to learn to live with them!"

Edited by DocBach, 05 January 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[Lonestar1771]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

OK, lets not turn this into a TT vs MWO discussion. PGI implemented ECM the way they figured best for the game. ECM is much like ariel killstreaks in the COD series, in that as time goes on, players will appriciate them for their values and unlock the later tiers of missile launchers to counter them. BHP, a module slot, and better BAP would be a solution to the problem.

Why not? This is a mechwarrior game which is based off TT. Not to mention the Devs very early on stated they wanted to keep the game close to TT. Problem here is that PGI is starting to get cute with there features and it's not working. It wastes time and money and it agitates the community. If they would just use what already works it wouldn't be the issue that it is now.

[MadSavage]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

Lets not turn this into a comparison of MWO to COD.

If you believe people will appreciate it, I suggest you check out how many calls for it to be changed or nerf there are in comparison to people claiming that it's absolutely fine and that people just have to learn to play (in Ravens and Atlases).

Killstreaks in COD are an ANALOGY to ECM in MWO, not a comparison. I've seen the posts on ECM and how OP it is. Again, I am not an advocate of arrogant L2P. All mechs are viable in that they have different roles to fill. Targeting multiple mechs for focus fire before shooting is a way to workaround ECM. Unfortunately, most of the time I spend spectating other players ends up in blindfire with no target selected.

Lonestar1771, on 05 January 2013 - 03:41 PM, said:

Why not? This is a mechwarrior game which is based off TT. Not to mention the Devs very early on stated they wanted to keep the game close to TT. Problem here is that PGI is starting to get cute with there features and it's not working. It wastes time and money and it agitates the community. If they would just use what already works it wouldn't be the issue that it is now.

The mods don't like that. There is a place for that.

[DocBach]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Again, I am not an advocate of arrogant L2P. All mechs are viable in that they have different roles to fill.

WANT SOME CHEESE WITH THAT WHINE?

All 'Mechs are not viable - bring a 'Mech with Narc or Beagle and tell me how useful it is. Bring a 'Mech with LRM's into an 8 man. ECM has made the gameplay for many roles of this game incredibly shallow, when it could have been used to make it so much deeper. ECM strategy is majorly "stick with each other than go counter so we can streak."

[Lonestar1771]

MadSavage, on 05 January 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Killstreaks in COD are an ANALOGY to ECM in MWO, not a comparison. I've seen the posts on ECM and how OP it is. Again, I am not an advocate of arrogant L2P. All mechs are viable in that they have different roles to fill. Targeting multiple mechs for focus fire before shooting is a way to workaround ECM. Unfortunately, most of the time I spend spectating other players ends up in blindfire with no target selected.



The mods don't like that. There is a place for that.

That's the problem with ECM! It nullifies mech roles AND information warfare.

Not sure what you are saying the mods don't like but it doesn't matter since what I said is true.


@Doc

♫WALL OF AT-LAS♫

[AntiCitizenJuan]

It seems like going as close to TT as possible is going to get us the best balance in most cases.

+1, this has my support

[MadSavage]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 03:50 PM, said:

WANT SOME CHEESE WITH THAT WHINE?

All 'Mechs are not viable - bring a 'Mech with Narc or Beagle and tell me how useful it is. Bring a 'Mech with LRM's into an 8 man. ECM has made the gameplay for many roles of this game incredibly shallow, when it could have been used to make it so much deeper. ECM strategy is majorly "stick with each other than go counter so we can streak."

Hahaha, yeah the constant posts about ECM are irritating. I recall another post "I don't play this game because of ECM." Talk about trolling. Or "Who wants a refund?" In my personal experience, very few to no people in our 8-man run streaks. Those other teams who attempt to run a heavy focus streaks usually aren't that effective. As for pugs, I also haven't seen any outstanding streak exclusive players.

[MadcatX]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

I ask you the same question - would sticking to electronic warfare as designed 25 years ago be a better game mechanic then ECM beats ECM, so bring more ECM? Or should the answer be "stupid neckbeards and their rulebooks are ruining my video game, ECM should be like airstrikes in call of duty, people need to learn to live with them!"

I choose a variant of one of your choices. It's not the perfect fix, but for now set a restriction on how many ECM units can be run on either side (I'm thinking 2 is a good number) to stop the whole "more ECM" trend that sometimes occurs.

[DocBach]

MadcatX, on 05 January 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

I choose a variant of one of your choices. It's not the perfect fix, but for now set a restriction on how many ECM units can be run on either side (I'm thinking 2 is a good number) to stop the whole "more ECM" trend that sometimes occurs.

I don't think limiting player freedom is a good idea - what I think a better idea is to make no piece of equipment an absolute necessity, which at the moment ECM is mission critical for success in competitive play.

[semalferuzA]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I've seen your thread on why ECM is fine as is and it boiled down to "learn to play, whiners."

Explain to me why ECM should be a stealth field for an entire team and how its good for the game and I'll listen.

Before ECM was implemented I was going through my Trial period and buying my first couple of mechs. Many games boiled down to both teams sitting behind cover/popping in and out until people ran out of LRMs. Sometimes a team or individual players would not out-wait the LRM spam and would move out into the open or try to cross the map and get killed by LRMs causing their team to lose. Streaks(more like streakcats) prevented light mechs from taking advantage of LRM boats lack short range weapons.

I think ECM/ECCM in it's current implementation with TAG being 750m works pretty well. The biggest problem right now is the lag shield that light mechs have when moving fast which is compounded by the effect of ECM. Streaks were(are) the best way to deal with lights because it's so difficult to hit them with other weapons and even when you do hit them the damage may not even register.

In case anyone is curious I play 4 different mechs. Raven-3L, Hunchback-4SP, Cataphract-IM, Atlas-D-DC. Two have ECM, two don't. I generally get similar results playing all 4, roughly 400-800 damage usually with 0-2 kills, sometimes more, plus 3-5 assists in games we win, even sometimes in ones we lose. Granted, I do not play all of the mechs in the same manner. I have to take their loadout into account, including ECM, when deciding what to do in-game. As long as I am aware of what I can and cannot do ECM or no ECM I usually have a good game.

The Atlas and Raven have the highest potential but I wouldn't say it's just because they have ECM. The Atlas is the most durable with a lot of firepower so more often on this mech than the others I can get 1000+ damage with many kills/assists. The Raven has a lot of potential because people just can't hit me if they aren't using lock-on weapons.

For me, ECM functions predominantly as an LRM deterrent which I think is justified because LRMs are incredibly powerful if used to full effectiveness.

Edited by semalferuzA, 05 January 2013 - 04:53 PM.

[DocBach]

semalferuzA, on 05 January 2013 - 04:51 PM, said:

For me, ECM functions predominantly as an LRM deterrent which I think is justified because LRMs are incredibly powerful if used to full effectiveness.

Would fixing the broken LRM mechanic been a better idea then adding another mechanic that completely skews gameplay balance?

[HurlockHolmes]

If you haven't already, post this in the suggestion forums too. (Though I am sure it will get more attention here, I am fairly certain pgi doesn't give a **** about what is posted in the general forums.)

[semalferuzA]

DocBach, on 05 January 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Would fixing the broken LRM mechanic been a better idea then adding another mechanic that completely skews gameplay balance?

I don't think it completely skews game balance. You don't need 6-8 on a team to be effective. In pugs 1-2 is enough, even if you have 0 the threat of ECM deters a lot of the boats from dropping. In 8mans 4 is enough. And I think leaving LRMs powerful is effectively utilized is good.

Edited by semalferuzA, 05 January 2013 - 05:15 PM.

[Dudeman3k]

Opinions aside, whether ECM is over powered, Slightly over powered, or completely balanced, Doc has a undeniable point.

"ECM is mission critical for success in competitive play."

In other words, it is mandatory to have it in all matches (PuG and Competitive alike)... and that really limits what you can bring to the field. It Kills motivation to purchase anything else... and PGI needs all the money it can get.

If anything, that should be a giant red flag for the DEVs.